I love the decision. The Redskins are... the Redskins. If you find it offensive, find a way to get over it.

Nobody expected him tos ay anything different. However if they lost the copyright protection it will cost them Millions upon Millions in merchandising issues, and legally they can still be forced to change. Not saying I want it to or not, but Snyders comment/opiniomn means nothing as we already knew how he/the team felt.

They would have to lose the trademark and the copyright for it to cost them "millions" in merchandizing. Further, I can't see the court over-turning anything related to either.

Do you have anything suggesting otherwise?

May 10th, 2013, 3:57 pm

Footsoldier32

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: February 28th, 2007, 12:13 pmPosts: 973

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

rao wrote:

Footsoldier32 wrote:

rao wrote:

I don't think Notre Dame is a valid comparison. The idea of Irish people as fighters has served as both a positive and negative stereotype throughout history.

I have to disagree somewhat. You are right that it can be viewed as a positive because it is a point of pride for some Irish. But if you were to look at it from a social justice standpoint the fighting becomes the main feature of the Irish community. It becomes the first and only impression an uneducated or ignorant person makes about that particular social group. Fighting can be perceived in a number of different ways. Perhaps it's simply a reference to boxing. However, to someone who is horribly PC, they might view the fighting stereotype to be a result of the drinking stereotype. We are all aware of the stereotype that says all Irish people are heavy drinkers (and in some cases have tempers as a result). I think if Irish people were black, more people would be up in arms about the label "Fighting Irish" because they would associate the two stereotypes and in that case, that would put a poor image on Irish people and as a result; hold them back from social resources or power. Being viewed as an angry drunk with a short temper paints someone as uneducated, uncivilized and possibly even primitive person. I guess that's what I was driving at.

The other issue with the comparison is that the "Fighting Irish" moniker requires you to already have preconceived notions about Irish people and a knowledge of their stereotypes to turn it into something negative. The Redskin name is said to be a racial slur, a word with no other meaning than to be a degrading way to refer to a specific group. I don't deny Notre Dame's nickname could be turned into a negative, but Notre Dame's history with Irish people and the fact that it already was used in a positive manner before they took it as their own make it something completely different from the Redskins issue.

I see what you're saying and feel like we are more or less on the same page.

_________________If you think education is tough, try being stoopid.

May 11th, 2013, 1:42 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2320

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

Im not expecting anything to happen. Was just saying his words are to be expected.

BY THERESA VARGAS June 18 at 9:56 AM Follow @TheresaVargas1The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.”

The landmark case, which appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed.

“This victory was a long time coming and reflects the hard work of many attorneys at our firm,” said lead attorney Jesse Witten, of Drinker Biddle & Reath.

Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”

“We are extraordinarily gratified to have prevailed in this case,” Alfred Putnam Jr., the chairman of Drinker Biddle & Reath, said. “The dedication and professionalism of our attorneys and the determination of our clients have resulted in a milestone victory that will serve as an historic precedent.”

The ruling does not mean that the Redskins have to change the name of the team. It does affect whether the team and the NFL can make money from merchandising because it limits the team’s legal options when others use the logos and the name on T shirts, sweatshirts, beer glasses and license plate holders.

In addition, Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to U.S. District Court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time. Team officials are expected to make a statement this morning.

“It is a great victory for Native Americans and for all Americans, “ Blackhorse said in a statement. “I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed.”

The Redskins name change controversy has been gathering steam over the past few years. U.S. senators, former and current NFL players and others all have called for team owner Dan Snyder to change the name.

Snyder has steadfastly refused to consider a name change, saying the name and logo honor Native Americans.

U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancels protection of Washington team namePosted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2014, 10:31 AM EDT

Whenever the government gets involved in the question of whether the Washington NFL team should change its name, people who support the current name ask whether the government has anything better to do. For one specific agency of the government, the answer is a resounding no.

That’s the same one-word response the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has supplied regarding the question of whether the name should continue to enjoy federal trademark protection. Via the Washington Post, the agency has canceled the registration, calling the name “disparaging to Native Americans.”

“This victory was a long time coming and reflects the hard work of many attorneys at our firm,” attorney Jesse Witten of Drinker Biddle & Reath told the Post.

It was indeed a long time coming, with the first challenge to the name filed back in 1992. The initial case failed on a technicality that the plaintiffs believe has been remedied in this case.

Moving forward, appeals are certain and lawyers will get paid and the issue won’t be settled for months if not years. In the interim, the ruling will serve only to give more momentum to the increasingly loud and persuasive voices that oppose the name.

If the name, after all appeals, is deemed to not be protected by trademark laws, anyone and everyone will be able to sell merchandise bearing the name and colors without the team having the ability to enforce its rights through legal action. While that may not be enough to compel owner Daniel Snyder to abandon his all-caps-never and/or “over my dead body” insistence on keeping the name, it would be the first tangible evidence of an economic consequence for continuing to cling to a name that the ever-evolving English language has over the slow march of time discarded from the list of socially acceptable terms.

Washington Redskins President Bruce Allen is claiming that all is well after the team lost its trademark in a ruling handed down today by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Asked whether the Redskins can continue to use their name, Allen told Mark Maske of the Washington Post, “We’re fine. We’re fine.”

As a legal matter, Allen is correct: The trademark issue does not compel the Redskins to change their name or logo. It just says they no longer have the right to federal trademark protection on their name and logo.

But as a practical matter, this could turn out to be the tipping point on this issue: If the Redskins lose their appeal of this ruling and therefore lose their trademark for good, anyone can sell cheap “Redskins” gear without paying to license the products. That would mean all those Redskins shirts and hats and other officially licensed gear would no longer need to be officially licensed. It could be sold anywhere, by anyone. And losing the exclusive right to sell Redskins shirts and hats and other gear would be costly.

Could Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who insists that he will never change the name, afford to lose that money? Yes. But even if Snyder is so devoted to the Redskins name that he’s willing to lose money over it, losing the ability to trademark the name wouldn’t just cost Snyder money. It would also cost the other teams, and the NFL’s merchandising partners, money. Snyder’s fellow owners aren’t going to stand for that.

Ultimately, the Redskins are “fine” only in the sense that they haven’t immediately lost their battle to keep their name. Where the Redskins aren’t fine is that in the long run, this ruling represents the biggest challenge yet to Snyder. And even if Snyder is willing to keep fighting, the time is likely to come when his fellow owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sit him down and tell him that the fight isn’t just about the Redskins logo. It’s also about the NFL Shield that Goodell cares so much about. And if Snyder’s stubbornness is hurting the league as a whole, he’s going to be forced to change, whether that change comes from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or not.

On Washington name, same ruling was issued 15 years agoPosted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2014, 11:32 AM EDT

When Washington president Bruce Allen said “we’re fine” in response to the news that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the team’s legal protection against knock-offs and other infringers, he may or may not have been thinking about 1999.

Fifteen years ago, the same ruling was issued by the same body, seven years after a challenge to the name was filed. A higher tribunal ultimately scuttled the conclusion, based on the legal doctrine of “standing,” which relates to one’s ability to file legal claims.

This time around, the plaintiffs believe they’ll prevail on that point. Even if they do, the appeal could overturn the ruling on other grounds. So it’s all still very preliminary.

Besides, if Allen was able to declare victory in response to the Harry Reid hashtag debacle, saying “we’re fine” with a straight face now should be an easy sell.

This difference this time comes from the surrounding debate on the name. In 1999, the opposition was far less organized and mainstream. In 2014, the opposition has coalesced and assumed a sense that it will last until the name inevitably changes.

The name will change once the opposition finds a tipping point that compels Commissioner Roger Goodell to gather a few key owners and persuade Snyder that it’s time to flash the victory sign and get on the helicopter. While today’s ruling may not be the tipping point, it could very well spark it, possibly through the decision of major sponsors to begin ending their relationship with the team or the league.

Would you be OK with naming a team "The Kikes" "The N*****s" or "Whitey"?

The only reason the team name has survived for so long is that most Native Americans were genocided.

I gotta admit..I'd root for the "Whities"! I'd wear the shirt proudly...but then I have very little class.

I forget where they are from. But, Rush Limbaugh used to talk about an all Indian Basketball team called the Fighting Whites. I think it is hilarious that people get their panties in a bunch over a team name.

Do you guys have any idea how many schools across America use the Redskins as their teams name? I live in Belding, MI. Yes, Belding Redskins is the school teams names. Just 20 miles away, Saranac uses Redskins also. Literally, hundreds of public schools use Redskins, indians, chiefs, ect for their team names. Are they all being insensitive or racist? The only people that are upset about team names are a bunch of hypersensitive Liberals. And they are never happy. As soon as they accomplish a goal, they go after the next target because their sole purpose in life is to dictate as much as they can to as many people as they can.

Would you be OK with naming a team "The Kikes" "The N*****s" or "Whitey"?

The only reason the team name has survived for so long is that most Native Americans were genocided.

I gotta admit..I'd root for the "Whities"! I'd wear the shirt proudly...but then I have very little class.

I forget where they are from. But, Rush Limbaugh used to talk about an all Indian Basketball team called the Fighting Whites. I think it is hilarious that people get their panties in a bunch over a team name.

Do you guys have any idea how many schools across America use the Redskins as their teams name? I live in Belding, MI. Yes, Belding Redskins is the school teams names. Just 20 miles away, Saranac uses Redskins also. Literally, hundreds of public schools use Redskins, indians, chiefs, ect for their team names. Are they all being insensitive or racist? The only people that are upset about team names are a bunch of hypersensitive Liberals. And they are never happy. As soon as they accomplish a goal, they go after the next target because their sole purpose in life is to dictate as much as they can to as many people as they can.

That team is from Greeley, Colorado and is more than just Native American players. Its an intramural college team that they formed and named in response to team names like the Redskins.